My roommate has an 05 R6. We were talking last night and comparing numbers, trying to decide who would win in a race. If the 4.1 0-60 is true, then off the line I would think the M3 would pull, as you can't give a bike full throttle on launch. I was thinking it would be pretty close 0-120, and then the bike would pull. But my friend thinks the car would pull past 120. Opinions?

My opinion: I hate car vs motorcycle comparisons. It falls into the apples vs oranges category of comparisons. What's the point really other than to put the motorcyclist in a position where he has the most to lose?

My roommate has an 05 R6. We were talking last night and comparing numbers, trying to decide who would win in a race. If the 4.1 0-60 is true, then off the line I would think the M3 would pull, as you can't give a bike full throttle on launch. I was thinking it would be pretty close 0-120, and then the bike would pull. But my friend thinks the car would pull past 120. Opinions?

All depends on the moment that the biker falls down the bike and breaks his neck. And that will happen sooner or later.

The R6 may win, but has a high chance of killing the driver on the way.

Come on with the negative comments on bikes guys. Bikes are fantastic, sure the statistics indicate they are quite dangerous but not everyone falls on the wrong side of those statistics.

OP: Have a look here (or the last entry with the list in this thread) and you can definitely decide yourself who will win.

I have nothing but love for sportbikes. I've owned a few in my day, but I knew better than to challenge cars to races as the motorcyclist was always the one with the most to lose and absolutely nothing to gain from the endeavor. The motorcyclist bears all the risk if something goes terribly wrong, and he stands to gain nothing if he was courageous enough to put it to its limits (he is expected to out run the car).